Evidence Hub

Differences in the Prevalence of Clinical Adjacent Segment Pathology among Continents after Anterior Cervical Fusion: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Young-Woo Chung, Sung-Kyu Kim, Y. Park

Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2021

113 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Development of adjacent segment pathology leading to secondary operation is a matter of concern after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Some studies have reported anatomic difference between races, but no epidemiological data on prevalence of clinical adjacent segment pathology (cASP) among races or continents has been published. The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery after monosegmental ACDF among continents by meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library with manual searching in key journals, reference lists, and the National Technical Information Service were searched from inception to December 2018. Twenty studies with a total of 2009 patients were included in the meta-analysis. We extracted the publication details, sample size, and prevalence of cASP that underwent surgery. A total of 15 papers from North America, three from Europe, and two from Asia met the inclusion criteria. A total number of 2009 patients underwent monosegmental ACDF, and 113 patients (5.62%) among them had cASP that underwent surgery. The rate of cASP that underwent surgery was 4.99% in the North America, 3.65% in the Europe, 6.34% in the Asia, and there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.63). The current study using the method of meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in the rate of cASP that underwent surgery after ACDF among the continents.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 113 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free